Case 12: Possible Conflict of Interest

Bill Quinn is the State Archaeologist for one of the states in the
Midwest. He is thus an employee of the state. Among the many responsibilities
of his office is the issuance of antiquities permits to allow qualified
archaeologists to do contract archaeology within the state. In this
context, his office often defines the scope of the archaeological work
to be done, prepares requests for proposals to do the work, evaluates
proposals (often submitted by private firms in a competitive bidding
situation), decides who will be awarded the contract, and ultimately
judges the adequacy of the work performed.

Mike is another full-time state employee as the State Highway Salvage
Archaeologist. He has decided to open his own (private) firm on the
side, and has applied for an antiquities permit so that he too might
bid on and receive some of these lucrative contracts. Bill is concerned
about this, because even though Mike is an honorable person, he will
be placing himself in a potential conflict of interest situation. This
is because Mike, as a part of his official duties as a public servant,
can take part in (and potentially influence) some of the archaeological
contract decisions and evaluations mentioned above. He and/or others
in his office would, among other things, be in a position to have prior
knowledge of future contracts and be in conflict of interest through
the contract process. In short, it would be possible for Mike to use
his position as a public official to gain unfair advantage over his
competitors in the private sector.

The Twofold Dilemma: (1) Should Bill issue an antiquities permit
to Mike? (2) Is it ethical for a public official (Mike, in this case)
to be, or allow himself to be, in a potential conflict of interest situation
of this nature, even though in fact he has no intention of abusing his
official position for personal gain (i.e., no actual conflict of interest
has occurred)? Or, is it unethical only if he actually acts in conflict
of interest?

Quinn's Decision

Bill decided that it would be inappropriate for Mike to hold an investigative
permit which would give him the authority to bid on any activities actually
or potentially related to federal, state, or local compliance or associated
competitive processes. Because problems emanating from prior knowledge
and conflict of interest are common to both public and private sectors
of employment, Bill used the following guidelines to assess the present
situation and to develop policy for future comparable situations:

From the Principles of Professional Responsibility, item 5, "Responsibility
to Sponsors": "[An anthropologist] should be especially careful not
to promise or imply acceptance of conditions contrary to [his] professional
ethics or competing commitments."

From the proposed revisions, AAA Code of Ethics: "Anthropologists
must seriously consider their own moral responsibility for their acts
when there is a risk that an individual, group, or organization may
be hurt or jeopardized physically, legally, in reputation, or in self-esteem
as a result."

In this instance, the individual, the company, competing companies,
and the primary (public) agency come into potential conflict.

Bill further considered the following: Even if individuals do not
compete within their own agency for contracts, it is inevitable that
they would at some time be in competition for contracts with groups
which would fall under the regulatory review, inspection, or proposal
review and award function of their primary agency employer(s). By the
agency anthropologist engaging in such competition, his or her disinterest
would necessarily be suspect and the credibility of the agency itself
called into question.